Richard Gasquet; the peter pan of tennis?

[George Turner]

I call him this as a summary of his career.

Gasquet has been lauded as a huge talent ever since the cradle (almost literally, appearing on a cover of a french magazine aged 9.) He's been praised as more naturally talented than Federer, as having the best backhand ever etc.

He made his career breakthrough at Wimbledon 2007, reaching the semis. But ever since then, nothing. He's just stayed the same, same level of results, exactly the same style of play. While players like Federer and Nadal evolve their games and mature, Gasquet has never matured at all, it still feels like he's some massive unfulfilled talent aged 31. His forehand and serve are still lacklusture, he still plays too far behind the baseline. Nothing has changed.

He has made plenty of money from the game but has won no big titles and has few, if any, meaningful victories against the very best players. He's essentially left no mark on the game at all, besides pleasing us with backhands.

Gasquet had always felt to me like a boy wonder, stuck in a time warp, Peter Pan. In 20 years time on the seniors tour we'll still be marvelling at that backhand.

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

 

[r2473]

This is literally the best summary of Gasquet's career I've ever seen. Literally.

 

[Fabresque]

I call him this as a summary of his career.

Gasquet has been lauded as a huge talent ever since the cradle (almost literally, appearing on a cover of a french magazine aged 9.) He's been praised as more naturally talented than Federer, as having the best backhand ever etc.

He made his career breakthrough at Wimbledon 2007, reaching the semis. But ever since then, nothing. He's just stayed the same, same level of results, exactly the same style of play. While players like Federer and Nadal evolve their games and mature, Gasquet has never matured at all, it still feels like he's some massive unfulfilled talent aged 31. His forehand and serve are still lacklusture, he still plays too far behind the baseline. Nothing has changed.

He has made plenty of money from the game but has won no big titles and has few, if any, meaningful victories against the very best players. He's essentially left no mark on the game at all, besides pleasing us with backhands.

Gasquet had always felt to me like a boy wonder, stuck in a time warp, Peter Pan. In 20 years time on the seniors tour we'll still be marvelling at that backhand.

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

Don’t think Gasquet cares much to be fair. He’s made a living from tennis in which 98% of pro’s can’t say they’ve done. He’s also managed to stay in or near the Top 10-15.

His talent was overhyped, like many other players. That’s why I’d say it’s best for the media to leave young promising players alone. Let them do their own thing and let them rise to their prominence. This is why I dislike Trans World Sport. They always overhype the young talents and a lot of them in recent memory turn out to be duds.

 

[George Turner]

Don’t think Gasquet cares much to be fair. He’s made a living from tennis in which 98% of pro’s can’t say they’ve done. He’s also managed to stay in or near the Top 10-15.

His talent was overhyped, like many other players. That’s why I’d say it’s best for the media to leave young promising players alone. Let them do their own thing and let them rise to their prominence. This is why I dislike Trans World Sport. They always overhype the young talents and a lot of them in recent memory turn out to be duds.

He may have have been overhyped, but he had Nadal worried in this match. Aged 18 or w/e it's little wonder he got so much hype.

I'm still waiting for the boy wonder in his 30's to finally mature and conquer a major, even though i know it won't happen.

 

[Antonio Puente]

He's essentially left no mark on the game at all

When you think about it, that's actually a pretty high standard. Only a handful of players leave a mark on the game. If you win a few slams and some Masters, have you left a mark on the game?

 

[George Turner]

When you think about it, that's actually a pretty high standard. Only a handful of players leave a mark on the game. If you win a few slams and some Masters, have you left a mark on the game?

Yes not many players do leave a mark, but for someone as hyped as Gasquet not to is disappointing. I would compare his career to Gulbis (though not as bad as that) massive hype, massive talent, but never developed past that and ended up with a totally forgettable career.

Some players can leave a mark without winning big tournaments.

Santoro for a unique style
Henman on the British Public for *heroic* wimbledon losses
George Bastl for beating Sampras in his last ever Wimbledon match.
Soderling for beating Nadal at the French
Tomic the tank engine for losing the shortest match in ATP history (28 mins) and for being the games biggest prat.

 

[Red Rick]

Richard Gasquet's career expectations that other people had are the absolute epitome of people not knowing **** about tennis or what talent exactly is.

 

[Gary Duane]

I call him this as a summary of his career.

Gasquet has been lauded as a huge talent ever since the cradle (almost literally, appearing on a cover of a french magazine aged 9.) He's been praised as more naturally talented than Federer, as having the best backhand ever etc.

He made his career breakthrough at Wimbledon 2007, reaching the semis. But ever since then, nothing. He's just stayed the same, same level of results, exactly the same style of play. While players like Federer and Nadal evolve their games and mature, Gasquet has never matured at all, it still feels like he's some massive unfulfilled talent aged 31. His forehand and serve are still lacklusture, he still plays too far behind the baseline. Nothing has changed.

He has made plenty of money from the game but has won no big titles and has few, if any, meaningful victories against the very best players. He's essentially left no mark on the game at all, besides pleasing us with backhands.

Gasquet had always felt to me like a boy wonder, stuck in a time warp, Peter Pan. In 20 years time on the seniors tour we'll still be marvelling at that backhand.

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

For Peter Pan he's aging badly. I've always thought he is a very odd looking guy, long neck and strange body. Now his hair is disappearing fast.

 

[George Turner]

Richard Gasquet's career expectations that other people had are the absolute epitome of people not knowing **** about tennis or what talent exactly is.

I think Gasquet could have had a Wawrinka type career (peaking at an earlier time.) Not consistent like Federer but capable of beating anyone at his best. In 2005 Wawrinka lost to Djokovic in the aus open qualifiers (Djokovic went on to lose 6-0 6-2 6-1 to Safin in the 1st round) while Gasquet was already showing promise on the main tour. Gasquet clearly could have had a much better career.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

I agree with almost all of it, George, good job. The only thing I would quibble with is that I don't recall anyone ever saying Gasquet was more naturally talented than Fed. And if anyone ever thought that, their idiocy has long since been exposed.

Gasquet never seemed to have much ambition and he's always been visibly nervous before big matches as well as a choker. His BH may be beautiful but it never was as great a shot as people claimed. Look at his record against the big guys, it's painful!

Nadal-Gasquet: 15-0
Fed-Gasquet: 15-2
Djoker-Gasquet: 12-1

 

[Antonio Puente]

Nadal-Gasquet: 15-0
Fed-Gasquet: 15-2
Djoker-Gasquet: 12-1

Fed

lol

 

[George Turner]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...derer-a-bastion-of-hope-or-a-burdened-prodigy

Gasquet actually was getting those sort of praises, he had the nickname baby fed for ages aswell!

Gasquet's lack of ambition sums up my point, he's Peter Pan, happy to remain where he is forever.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I call him this as a summary of his career.

Gasquet has been lauded as a huge talent ever since the cradle (almost literally, appearing on a cover of a french magazine aged 9.) He's been praised as more naturally talented than Federer, as having the best backhand ever etc.

He made his career breakthrough at Wimbledon 2007, reaching the semis. But ever since then, nothing. He's just stayed the same, same level of results, exactly the same style of play. While players like Federer and Nadal evolve their games and mature, Gasquet has never matured at all, it still feels like he's some massive unfulfilled talent aged 31. His forehand and serve are still lacklusture, he still plays too far behind the baseline. Nothing has changed.

He has made plenty of money from the game but has won no big titles and has few, if any, meaningful victories against the very best players. He's essentially left no mark on the game at all, besides pleasing us with backhands.

Gasquet had always felt to me like a boy wonder, stuck in a time warp, Peter Pan. In 20 years time on the seniors tour we'll still be marvelling at that backhand.

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

No.

Gasquet was not good enough as a player to become a fixture in the upper echelon of Men's tennis. His 'talent' is completely overblown.

He is a good player at best, managing 3 SFs and 2 QFs at GS level throughout his career.

It's also wrong to call 2007 his pinnacle - he came back and dedicated himself to tennis after that cocaine incident, reaching No. 9 in the world from 2013-2014 (effectively taking Tipsarevic's spot in the top ten).

 

[Red Rick]

Seriously, how a player who has limiting technique on the two most important strokes in tennis, and a backhand that takes about 9 years to set up, was once called 'more talented than Federer' is something I can't understand.

He maxed out young and he hits pretty shots. Definition of 'talent' accourding to prophets of false hype

 

[roundiesee]

This is literally the best summary of Gasquet's career I've ever seen. Literally.

Agreed! Great post from OP!

 

[heninfan99]

You have your data very wrong. It's true he hasn't evolved but he's made semis of the US Open and another Wimby but I agree, he hasn't really evolve overall.

He did make a number key changes under Piatti but reverted back to his old ways after they split.

I call him this as a summary of his career.

Gasquet has been lauded as a huge talent ever since the cradle (almost literally, appearing on a cover of a french magazine aged 9.) He's been praised as more naturally talented than Federer, as having the best backhand ever etc.

He made his career breakthrough at Wimbledon 2007, reaching the semis. But ever since then, nothing. He's just stayed the same, same level of results, exactly the same style of play. While players like Federer and Nadal evolve their games and mature, Gasquet has never matured at all, it still feels like he's some massive unfulfilled talent aged 31. His forehand and serve are still lacklusture, he still plays too far behind the baseline. Nothing has changed.

He has made plenty of money from the game but has won no big titles and has few, if any, meaningful victories against the very best players. He's essentially left no mark on the game at all, besides pleasing us with backhands.

Gasquet had always felt to me like a boy wonder, stuck in a time warp, Peter Pan. In 20 years time on the seniors tour we'll still be marvelling at that backhand.

Is this a fair summary of Gasquets career?

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

Seriously, how a player who has limiting technique on the two most important strokes in tennis, and a backhand that takes about 9 years to set up, was once called 'more talented than Federer' is something I can't understand.

He maxed out young and he hits pretty shots. Definition of 'talent' accourding to prophets of false hype

His serve is average at best, and his forehand is downright mediocre. Oh yeah, her hits a great BH from behind the city sign on the court!

Not working in today's tennis!


Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[jaggy]

BH is a thing of beauty

 

[WhiskeyEE]

A wise man once said that Gasquet's shoulders are simply too narrow to succeed on the pro tour.

 

[Sudacafan]

OP provided an insightful definition of Gasquet

 

[tennisaddict]

I wonder who among Monfils and Gasquet are the worst amongst the top Frenchmen - Tsonga, Simon, Monfils, Gasquet, Pouille.

Both of them have disappointed time and time again. At least Monfils is entertaining.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Gasquet has had a serviceable career by most standards, 14 career titles, 3 major semifinals, career high peak of number 7.
Lacked the mental fortitude to go one step better, as well as genuine weapons.

 

[AngryBirds]

I agree with almost all of it, George, good job. The only thing I would quibble with is that I don't recall anyone ever saying Gasquet was more naturally talented than Fed. And if anyone ever thought that, their idiocy has long since been exposed.

Gasquet never seemed to have much ambition and he's always been visibly nervous before big matches as well as a choker. His BH may be beautiful but it never was as great a shot as people claimed. Look at his record against the big guys, it's painful!

Nadal-Gasquet: 15-0
Fed-Gasquet: 15-2
Djoker-Gasquet: 12-1

This is the exact reason why he has underachieved. If he can't beat the big guys, then he can't win big titles.

 

[HuusHould]

He needed/needs a bigger (more damaging) serve, more reliable forehand (I think he modelled his on Grosjean) and a greater degree of mental toughness, his record from 2 sets to love up seems to indicate vulnerability in this regard. I wonder why the Frenchmen so often disappoint, I mean after Tsonga's 08 AO run, we thought he was a Shu in for major success...

 

[Mainad]

Good summary from OP.

Never understood why Gasquet stands so far back from the baseline. Did he see Nadal do it and think that was the way to go?

 

[AngryBirds]

Good summary from OP.

Never understood why Gasquet stands so far back from the baseline. Did he see Nadal do it and think that was the way to go?

They both have long take back, so they need more time to prepare for their groundstrokes, but Gasquet is no Nadal. The difference is Nadal is a speed demon who can chase down everything from 20 feet behind the baseline.

 

[reaper]

This is literally the best summary of Gasquet's career I've ever seen. Literally.

It's the only summary I've ever seen of Gasquet's career. Literally.

 

[Mainad]

They both have long take back, so they need more time to prepare for their groundstrokes, but Gasquet is no Nadal. The difference is Nadal is a speed demon who can chase down everything from 20 feet behind the baseline.

That's the problem for Gasquet in a nutshell. I'm sure various coaches have tried to explain this to him but he just seems to be too stubborn to listen.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Gasquet is known around the world. He has made a living from something that he loves. He has been top 20 for 10+ years and I doubt that you would find more than 100 players to do so. Maybe he could have done marginly better, maybe he couldnt. He lacked power from the forehand side and lacked big serve, I suppose if there was a way a better technique to improve that, he would have tried. Mentally there is always room to improve but in the end you are who you are and Richard, as a french, never seemed the "rocky" type - not to mention that his biggest success,Wimbledon 07, came after some sick mental strenght from his part because Roddick was so much better than him in the QF and he somehow lost.

 

[ibbi]

 

[Fedinkum]

At least we will remember his backhand. Most other players don't even have that privilege.

 

[morten]

For Peter Pan he's aging badly. I've always thought he is a very odd looking guy, long neck and strange body. Now his hair is disappearing fast.

LOL. . As the kids say.. Long neck strange body. . Spot on

 

[tacou]

As a major Gasquet fan, spot on OP. It cuts both ways though; he never lived up to the hype, but he also never went away for very long. Always when you think he is washed up, he makes a slam QF, wins a small tourney or two, and is back knocking on the door of the top 10.

 

[tacou]

one of my favorite series moments. the delivery on that line is soo genuine.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Who is the Rufio of tennis?

 

[Noelan]

Gasquet legs are disproportionate to his upper body

 

[Gary Duane]

LOL. . As the kids say.. Long neck strange body. . Spot on

I posted this before, didn't even get a laugh:

 

[mike danny]

Very good summary.

Also, aged 31 and he hasn't even won a title above 250.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Like some of OP’s thoughts. Prodigies (and their arcs) are fascinating case studies to begin with. Like a lot of others, I’d have enjoyed seeing more culminating glory for him. Still, expanding the range of a stroke in a way that no one had is a sweet claim to fame.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[NickJ]

There's a phrase here in the UK, always the bridesmaid, never the bride. Gasquet has never come close to being even on the top table at the reception. Gasquet is the uncle asked to come in the photos about half an hour later and asked if he can hide the cigarette he's got going behind his back for 5 seconds.
I love his backhand, it's a real thing of beauty.
I fully expect if he were to read any of this would, with a Gallic shrug of the shoulders, carry on counting the prize money he's made from years of hitting a round piece of inflated felt whilst hopping the planet making his way from one slender beauty to the next . . . .

Where did it all go wrong Richard??

 

[Purplemonster]

I think Gasquet could have had a Wawrinka type career (peaking at an earlier time.) Not consistent like Federer but capable of beating anyone at his best. In 2005 Wawrinka lost to Djokovic in the aus open qualifiers (Djokovic went on to lose 6-0 6-2 6-1 to Safin in the 1st round) while Gasquet was already showing promise on the main tour. Gasquet clearly could have had a much better career.

Wawrinka has more balls, a much better backhand and serve.

 

[PMChambers]

His career has been very sound, unfortunately he does not have a Top 10 serve or Top 10 Forehand. They're serviceable but neither developed into a weapon and his only weapon is not big enough to dominate. Not sure why anyone looks at this as a failure. His results are solid generally, his head to head vs OK except any top 5 player capable of beating him at the back of the court off a neutral ball dominates him as take that way and he's in trouble.
So players like Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro,Nalbandian, Federer have a great HvH. Murray to a lesser extend. All the players below are past Top 5 bold are past No.1.

End of the day he is not beating Murray, Federer, Djokovic or Nadal. So getting to a SF is only going to happen with luck. Your Berdych, Tsong, Soderling type players have enogh fire power to edge him out on consistency.

If you where expecting a French Federer you must have been dreaming or drinking to much Perrier.

• Kei Nishikori 7–2
• Tomáš Berdych 7–9
• Nikolay Davydenko 6–2
• Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 4–5
• Robin Söderling 3–2
• Andy Murray 3–8
• Ivan Ljubičić 2–0
• Sébastien Grosjean 2–1
• Rainer Schüttler 2–1
• Stan Wawrinka 2–1
• James Blake 2–2
• Gastón Gaudio 2–2
• Tommy Haas 2–2
• Tommy Robredo 2–3
• Andy Roddick 2–3
• Marat Safin 2–4
• David Ferrer 3–9
• Roger Federer 2–15
• Jonas Björkman 1–0
• Carlos Moyá 1–3
• Milos Raonic 1–3
• Juan Martín del Potro 1–6
• Novak Djokovic 1–12
• Andre Agassi 0–1
• Guillermo Coria 0–1
• Juan Carlos Ferrero 0–1
• Fernando González 0–1
• Gustavo Kuerten 0–1
• Tim Henman 0–2
• Lleyton Hewitt 0–2
• David Nalbandian 0–7
• Rafael Nadal 0–14

*As of 18 March 2017

 

[BringBackWood]

He may have have been overhyped, but he had Nadal worried in this match. Aged 18 or w/e it's little wonder he got so much hype.

I'm still waiting for the boy wonder in his 30's to finally mature and conquer a major, even though i know it won't happen.

To me this match proves he was never 'overhyped'. He really was a special talent, and should have been a multi slam winner. I don't think I will ever figure out why he changed his gamestyle to become so passive. It's like he deliberately chose not to become a contender, but to hide away in the shadows making a decent career.

 

[inspiration4]

maybe he only hasn't lived up to people's expectation on him that's way too much for him.I don't think he didn't try hard for ways to improve but the process of making breakthrough is far more complicated and tortuous.I haven't watched a lot of games of him,but I do believe he has the quality to turn back from the bottom he did show some toughness when he was against wawrinka at wimbledon right?

通过我的 vivo Xplay5S 上的 Tapatalk发言